U.S. Army Specialist Michael New decided to risk the possibility of court martial, dishonorable discharge, and a prison term rather than wear the UN insignia on his uniform.
When Michael New joined the U.S. Army and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, no mention was made of the United Nations. No one said anything about swearing allegiance to a would-be world government, or being subject to service under its alien command. That's why Michael New balked when he was ordered to wear the UN insignia. Up to that point, he had been a typical American soldier, subject to the command of American military officers and possessed of all the rights of an American citizen -- and that's what he wanted to remain.
Specialist New demanded to know how a UN emblem on his uniform would affect his status as a soldier in the U.S. Army. Would he still be in the service of the United States, or would he be considered to be in the service of the United Nations instead? If taken prisoner during the UN's "peacekeeping mission," would he be treated as an American POW or as a UN hostage? Michael New's superiors refused to answer those crucially important questions.
The Army was in "a difficult position," remarks Dennis Cuddy, former professor of U.S. history at the University of North Carolina, and the author of a popular pamphlet on the New World Order. If the UN insignia on his uniform would have no effect on Michael New's status as an American soldier, then why was it so important for him to wear it? If the insignia merely identifies a UN operation, then why didn't American soldiers serving in Korea wear UN emblems on their uniforms?
Taking a pass on those prickly posers, the Army argued that President Clinton as commander-in-chief had lawfully ordered American soldiers to wear the UN insignia, and that's the end of that. The alleged lawfulness of the order presumably derives from a classified Presidential Directive of May 3, 1994, in which Clinton asserted his authority "to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander." Cuddy says that "one reason New has asked for an explanation of how his status would change if he wore UN insignias is to determine if this order actually is lawful." Cuddy contends that it is unconstitutional, and that Army Specialist Michael New is "correct to refuse to wear UN insignia over his American uniform."
Why all the fuss about a silly little emblem? Dennis Cuddy argues that obscuring the national identities of troops participating in a UN peacekeeping mission and forcing them all to sport UN insignia indicates "a change of command or authority." Once the United Nations has troops that it can truly call its own, it will have become what its founders wanted it to be -- "a de facto world government."
